SCOTUS POTUS Immunity Trial

[Polds4OSU]

It is Ongoing now...and boy.....wow

Trump Lawyer Argues He Could Legally Order Assassination Of A Political Rival OR Stage a Military Coup Without any Prosecution​

Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Tuesday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.

Jack Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, made the “absolute immunity” argument in a Supreme Court hearing on Thursday in the Department of Justice election interference case against the former president. Trump’s team has repeatedly claimed that the ex-president can’t be prosecuted for “official acts” he did while in office.


Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.

Sotomayor seemed taken aback at that line of reasoning.

“I am having a hard time thinking that creating false documents, that submitting false documents, that ordering the assassination of a rival, that accepting a bribe and countless other laws that could be broken for personal gain, that anyone would say that it would be reasonable for a president or any public official to do that,” Sotomayor said, including other examples from Trump’s lawyer’s argument that could logically lead to no prosecution.

Justice Elena Kagan offered a few more hypotheticals to Trump’s attorney, including if a president would be immune from prosecution if they sold the country’s nuclear secrets to a foreign power.


“Likely not immune,” Sauer said, before adding a qualifier: “Now, if it’s structured as an official act, he’d have to be impeached and convicted first.”

“How about if the president orders a military coup?” Kagan asked.

“I think it would depend on the circumstances,” Sauer said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, another liberal on the court, said Trump’s reasoning could mean presidents in the future could commit all sorts of crimes.

“I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country,” Jackson said. “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk future presents would be emboldened to commit crimes in office?”

 

[Polds4OSU]

Justices ask attorneys if presidents can pardon themselves​

As the justices wrestle with immunity, they are posing another question to lawyers: can presidents pardon themselves?

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Trump attorney John Sauer about the possibility, saying presidents could be incentivized to do so if they fear their successors could prosecute them for actions they took while in office.

"I didn't think of that until your honor asked it," Sauer said. "That is certainly incentive that might be created."

Michael Dreeben, arguing for the government, was later asked for his view on whether the president has such authority.

"I don't believe the Department of Justice has taken a position," Dreeben said. The only authority that I'm aware of is a member of the Office of Legal Counsel wrote on a memorandum that there is no self-pardon authority. As far as I know, the department has not addressed it further and the court had not addressed it either."

 

[Polds4OSU]

Alito asks how 'robust' protection against bad faith prosecution is​

Justice Samuel Alito addressed the "layers of protection" against bad faith prosecutions raised by the DOJ.

"I'm going to start with what the D.C. Circuit said. So, the first layer of protection is that attorneys general and other justice department attorneys can be trusted to act in a professional and ethical manner, right?" Alito said. "How robust is that protection?"

Alito continued that the "vast majority" of attorneys general and justice department attorneys "take their professional ethical responsibilities seriously" but that there have been exceptions.

In response, DOJ attorney Michael Dreeben agreed that there have been "rare exceptions" and said that "we're talking about layers of protection."

"I do think this is the starting point, and if the court has concerns about the robustness of it, I would suggest looking at the charges in this case," he said.


"The allegations about the misuse of the Department of Justice to perpetuate election fraud show exactly how the Department of Justice functions in the way that it is supposed to," Dreeben said. "Petitioner is alleged to have tried to get the Department of Justice to send fraudulent letters to the states to get them to reverse electoral results."

 

[Polds4OSU]

'Making a mistake' as president doesn't result in charges: DOJ​

Michael Dreeben, arguing for Smith's team, faced questions from Justice Samuel Alito on whether or not presidents can make a "mistake" given the many competing pressures they are under in their day to day duties.
"Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled," Alito said, then asking if a "mistake" makes a commander in chief criminally liable.

"Making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution," Dreeben said.
Later he raised some of the specific accusations in the charges against Trump: "It is difficult for me to understand how there could be a serious constitutional question about saying, 'You can't use fraud to defeat the [certification of the winner of the presidential election], you can't obstruct it through deception, you can't deprive millions of voters of their right to have their vote counted for the candidate who they chose.'"

 

[Polds4OSU]

Prosecutor on why there haven't been prior criminal prosecutions for presidents​

Asked by Justice Clarence Thomas why previous presidents were not prosecuted for controversial actions, prosecutor Michael Dreeben said "this is a central question."

"The reason why there have not been prior criminal prosecutions is that there were not crimes," he said.

He said there are "layers of safeguards" that ensure that former presidents do not have to "lightly assume criminal liability for any of their official acts."

 

[Polds4OSU]

KBJ says granting Trump's position would 'embolden' POTUS to act criminally 'with abandon'​

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was worried that granting Trump's position for presidential immunity would "embolden" a president to act criminally "with abandon."

"If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. ... I worry that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to following the law while he's in office," she said.

John Sauer responded by suggesting that history has shown that this hasn't happened so far. “I respectfully disagree with that because the regime you described is the regime we operated under for 234 years," he said.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Kavanaugh raises question of 'risk' of 'vague' statues to go after a president​

In a recurring point of interest for the court as it questioned the government, Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question of the "risk" of a "creative prosecutor" using "vague" criminal statutes -- including obstruction and conspiracy, which Trump faces -- against any president if they can't claim immunity.


In response, Department of Justice attorney Michael Dreeben said the question about the risk is "very serious" and "obviously it is a question that this court has to evaluate." He argued there is a "balanced protection" with "accountability" for the presidency.

Both Kavanaugh and Justice Samuel Alito appeared skeptical of Smith's use of at least some of the conspiracy and fraud-related charges in the case against Trump. Alito said to Dreeben: "I don't want to dispute the particular application of that [conspiracy statute] to the particular facts here, but would you not agree that is a peculiarly open-ended statutory prohibition? And that fraud under that provision, unlike under most other fraud provisions, does not have to do -- doesn't require any impairment of a property interest?"

Dreeben responded: "It is designed to protect the functions of the United States government and it is difficult to think of a more critical function than the certification of who won the election."

 

[Polds4OSU]

And the Trump lawyers are arguing that every act the president does is an official act


Trump lawyers just argued in front of the SCOTUS that the president can sell Nuclear Secrets to a FOREIGN ADVERSARY and not be doing anything illegal

 

[GOGETUMPOKE]

I really don't want to read all of that. So, do they really, really, really, have him this time?

 

[Polds4OSU]

Thomas raises the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba ​

Apparently picking up on Justice Elena Kagan’s earlier questions touching on a military coup in the U.S., Justice Clarence Thomas asked why past presidents haven’t faced criminal charges for fomenting coups in foreign countries, using Operation Mongoose, the failed 1961 CIA attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro in Cuba, as an example.


“There were no prosecutions” after the so-called Bay of Pigs affair, Thomas said. (President John F. Kennedy, who ordered the operation, was assassinated before the end of his first term.)

Michael Dreeben, arguing for the Justice Department, replied that U.S. law has a “public authority defense” that protects a president from prosecution for overseas acts. The defense “would prevent it from being a violation of law.”

 

[Polds4OSU]

Justice Department: `Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution’​

Opening his argument for the Justice Department, Michael Dreeben said the Supreme Court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official.

But Trump, Dreeben said, is asking that presidents be protected from prosecution for bribery, treason, sedition, murder and for conspiring to use fraud to overturn an election.

“Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution,” Dreeben said. “The framers knew too well the danger of a king who could do no wrong.”

 

[Polds4OSU]

Immunity for official acts versus private​

Although Trump’s lawyer concedes that presidents can be prosecuted for private acts, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed why that should be different for official acts.

“If there’s no threat to criminal prosecution, what prevents the president from doing whatever he wants?” she asked.


Sauer said the president is required to follow the law for his official acts. But the question is whether the punishment for not doing so is impeachment or criminal prosecution.

Jackson asked how Trump's argument didn't "risk turning the oval office into the center of criminality in this country."

 

[Polds4OSU]

Coup could be an official act, Trump lawyer says​

Trump lawyer D. John Sauer, speaking in a notable rasp, found himself cornered by Justice Elena Kagan as she pushed him to draw a line between a president’s official and unofficial acts.

Kagan asked Sauer whether a president could officially order the military to stage a coup at the end of their term. “Is it an official act?”


“It could well be,” Sauer replied.

“It certainly sounds very bad,” Kagan said.

Sauer said the Constitution and the military’s code of justice prevents “that very extreme hypothetical.”

 

[Polds4OSU]

Sotomayor asks about fake electors​

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Trump’s lawyer why he can claim that Trump’s actions were part of his official duties instead of being done for personal gain. Trump, she said, created a fraudulent list of presidential electors.

“Is that plausible that that would be within his right to do?” she asked.

Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, disputed Sotomayor’s characterization that Trump was doing anything fraudulent with the electors he was pushing.

“This was being done on an alternative basis,” Sauer said.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Sotomayor: 'Fundamentally evil' acts must be prosecuted​

Challenging former President Donald Trump’s argument that a president is entitled to complete immunity, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

“Immunity says even if you did it for personal gain,” Sotomayor told attorney D. John Sauer, president’s actions, including murder and bribery, ”cannot be prosecuted.”

 

[Polds4OSU]

Does presidential motive matter?​

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the Justice Department on whether the court should consider the motive of a president when deciding whether a presidential act deserves immunity. Everything a president does can be seen through the prism of his interest in getting re-elected, he said.


Michael Dreeben, the Justice Department’s attorney, said motive doesn’t have to be considered for a core presidential act – such as a veto, or appointment – which is protected from prosecution.

“None is involved in this case,” Dreeben said.

Gorsuch said he’s not asking so much about Trump’s case but whether accusations about a president’s motives can be a future basis for prosecution.

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Gorsuch said.

Dreeben said wanting to get re-elected is not an illegal motive.

“And you don’t have to worry about prosecuting presidents for that,” he said.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Barrett looks for way for Trump trial to proceed​

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asks the Justice Department whether the government can get to trial faster by prosecuting only on the Trump acts that his lawyer agrees are private conduct so are not immune.

Michael Dreeben, the Justice Department attorney, said Trump’s official and private acts are part of an “integrated conspiracy.”

But he added that a trial could proceed by allowing the government to introduce anything considered an official act as information that has relevance even if not a crime itself.

 

[Polds4OSU]

The case is submitted​

The historic arguments wrapped up after more than two-and-a-half hours of debate with Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, forgoing his opportunity for a final rebuttal after the Justice Department made its case.

“I have nothing further,” Sauer said.

And with that, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that the case is submitted.

 

[Big Huck]

I really don't want to read all of that. So, do they really, really, really, have him this time?

It's amazing to watch you bury your head in the sand, acknowledge the fact you're burying your head in the sand, and be completely happy to do it. It's an ignorant world of bliss you've made for yourself while helping to usher in Republican fascism for the rest of us.

 

[CowboyJD]

It's amazing to watch you bury your head in the sand, acknowledge the fact you're burying your head in the sand, and be completely happy to do it. It's an ignorant world of bliss you've made for yourself while helping to usher in Republican fascism for the rest of us.

While the Republican fascism statement is a bit hyperbolic for my tastes, the rest of this is spot on.

It's the MAGA playbook.

Everybody but Trump.....is guilty, biased, and corrupt.